When a journalist blogs, is it journalism? or blogging?

Random thought that hit me as I was reading Jon Udell's blog entries on Longhorn.  What's the difference between his blog entries, and his news analysis pieces or columns in InfoWorld?  They seem to be of the same caliber of writing and analysis.  Is it just a question of length, or does Jon have a different standard for content that goes into his blog, vs. content that goes into a formal story in InfoWorld?

Scoble has had some entries about what blogging means for journalism.  I don't have much of an opinion on this, but it would be very interesting to hear what Jon, Mary-Jo, or David Coursey (is AnchorDesk now gone in favor of David's blog?) have to say.  Does a quick blog entry meet the same standards and go through the same background and vetting process as a “real” story?  Is a blog entry equally as obligated to represent both sides of a controversy, or is it expected to only represent the journalist's point of view?  Are blogs supposed to be more of a conversation -- and if so, should they always have comments enabled?

Comments (2)

  1. Steve K. says:


    Journalists are still testing the waters to see where blogging fits into their strategies.

    However, they still need to get their facts straight if they want to maintain the level of credibility they have built for themselves.

    A journalist’s reputation will suffer if his blog entries aren’t up-to-par with his more formal pieces.

    Right now one of the differences between blog entries and formal stories/columns, etc. is that the deadlines probably aren’t as tight.

    Bloggers make their own deadlines, man.

Skip to main content